TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 against M/s. Hind Hydraulics Engg. (Now M/s. Hind Fluid Pvt., Ltd.), plot No. 13, Sector 24, Faridabad. The same shall be paid with interest at applicable rates. (2) I impose a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only) against Sh. Sucha Singh, Director of M/s. Hind Fluid Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (3) I impose a penalty of Rs. 6,87,307/- (Rupees Six Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, three hundred and seven only) against M/s. Primax International, Plot No. 13, Sector 24, Faridabad under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty was also imposed under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty was also sought to be imposed on unit No. II and III under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules,1944 for violation of Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalty was also sought to be imposed on Shri Sucha Singh, Director and Shri Sukhdev Singh, Partner under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 2001. It was held by the authority below that the machines in question were not manufactured by unit No. II and III but were manufactured by unit No. I which were cleared clandestinely by unit No. II and III to evade the payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered unit and unit Nos. II and III were not registered with the Central Excise department. The show cause notice alleged that unit Nos. II and III have no manufacturing facility to manufacture the machines in question. Therefore, the same has been manufactured by unit No. I. Therefore, the duty was demanded from unit No. I and penalties were also imposed on unit Nos. II and III. The show cause [notice] cannot be issued to imposed penalty under Rule 173Q as the show cause notice has not mentioned under which clause of Rule 173Q has been violated, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on the appellants as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods v. CCE - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). 5. He further submits that duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... III. The said allegation is made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, as the unit No. II and III were having purchase order for supply of machines and no evidence has been adduced by the Revenue to prove that the unit Nos. II and III have no manufacturing facility to manufacture the goods. Therefore, the unit Nos. II and III have manufacturing facility to manufacture the goods. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills v. Union of India - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J172) (S.C.) = 2002 TIOL-307-SC-EX and in the case of Heliwal Polypackers Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (340) E.L.T. 204. 10. On the other hand, Ld. AR opposed the contention of the Ld. Counsel and submits that the allegations against the appellants are that uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the report of Shri R.K. Agarwal dated 16-5-2017, Shri N.K. Arora, chartered engineer by note dated 30-3-2019 stated that the units Nos. II and III are having manufacturing facility. There are contrary reports of chartered engineer before us. On examination of the reports, we find that the reports relied upon by the Revenue is without visiting and examining the machinery installed at unit No. II and unit No. III whereas the report produced by the appellants is based on physical verification of the machinery installed by the Chartered Engineer at unit No. II and unit No. III. As Shri N.K. Arora has given report after visiting the unit and have stated that Unit No. II and III are having manufacturing facility to manufacture the goods in ques....